Coping With Behavioral and Organizational Barriers to Diversity in the Workplace

By: Alvin Evans, Edna Breinig Chun

Evans, A., & Chun, E. (2007). Coping with behavioral and organizational barriers to diversity in the workplace. CUPA-HR Journal, Vol. 58, No. 1, 12-18.

Made available courtesy of the College & University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR): http://www.cupahr.org/index.aspx ***© CUPA-HR. Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from CUPA-HR. This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures may be missing from this format of the document. ***

Abstract:

Research in social psychology reveals that discrimination as a stressor is linked to adverse physical and psychological effects on those targeted, through the effects of cumulative, recurring and often ambiguous incidents. Stress that results from the impact of subtle forms of exclusion and discrimination can give rise to increased illness, loss of productivity and escalating health costs. This article explores how minority and female faculty and staff facing subtle behavioral and organizational barriers to inclusion in the higher education workplace can develop effective coping strategies to deal with these obstacles and how human resource professionals can help those affected by discrimination.

Higher Education | Diversity | Inclusion | Discrimination | Personnel Management | Keywords:Human Resources | Social Psychology

Coping With Behavioral and Organizational Barriersto Diversity in the WorkplaceBY ALVIN EVANS AND EDNA BREINIG CHUN

Evans and Chun are co-authors of a new book. Are tbe Walls Really Down? Behavioral and OrganizationalBarriers to Faculty and Staff Diversity.

Research in social psychology reveals that discrimination as a stressor is linked to adverse physical and psychological effectson those targeted, through the effects of cumulative, recurring and often ambiguous incidents. Stress that results from theimpact of subtle forms of exclusion and discrimination can give rise to increased illness, loss of productivity and escalatinghealth costs. This article explores how minority and female faculty and staff facing subtle behavioral and organizationalbarriers to inclusion in the higher education workplace can develop effective coping strategies to deal with these obstaclesand how human resource professionals can help those affected hy discrimination.

IntroductionJust 50 years after the implementation of Civil Rights legislation, women and minorities in the higher educationworkplace today face the emergence of suhtle and covert forms of discrimination and exclusion. Given the longhistory of exclusion of minorities in the United States, these new forms of marginalization reflect the widespreadconsciousness ofthe potential for the use of legal remedies to address forms of overt discrimination. In the past,human resource professionals have dealt with more blatant acts of discrimination and exclusion. Today, everydayforms of workplace discrimination are exhibited in subtle behavioral and organizational barriers that are muchmore difficult to identify, but nonetheless recurring and cumulative in impact. These repeated, micro-level forms ofmarginalization lead to the revolving door, high turnover, deleterious psychological and physical effects upon thosewho experience discrimination-related stress, and the continual need to recruit and hire new minority and femalefaculty and staff (Evans & Chun 2007).

Organizational barriers to diversity and inclusion in the higher education workplace can include lack ofsupport, failure to empower and include in decision-making processes, differing expectations, stereotyping, lack ofmentoring and access to formal and informal networks, isolation and soloing, and tokenism (Evans & Chun 2007).Behavioral barriers may be displayed in many ways, including micro-level incursions, distancing and avoidance,delegitimization, silencing and other subtle forms of exclusion (Evans & Chun 2007).

ALVIN EVANS is associate vice president for Human Resources at Kent State University, where he oversees a broadrange of functions including recruitment and staffing, labor relations and benefits. He has more than 20 years ofexperience in HR and served as director of Personnel for the Cleveland School District prior to coming to Kent State.He can be reached at aevans3@kent.edu.

EDNA BREINIG CHUN is vice president for Human Resources and Equity at Broward Community College. Shehas two decades of human resource leadership experience in higher education, including at public research universitiesin C l̂alifornia, Oregon and Ohio. She is a frequent presenter on topics related to diversity at national and regionalconferences. She can be reached at echun@broward.edu.

Spring/Summer 2007 - Page 12

Micro-level incursions are small incidents with large consequences that occur with greater frequencythan severe forms of discrimination (Deitch et al. 2003). For example, a supervisor can provide devaluing feedbackor messages that undermine an employee's self-esteem and work performance (Young 2003). Avoidance anddistancing have been shown to indicate negative attitudes toward marginalized groups through nonverbal behaviorssuch as interpersonal distance, lack of eye contact, and body and shoulder orientation {Word, Zanna & Cooper2000). Delegitimization is another behavioral barrier that can occur when individuals or groups are stereotypedinto extremely negative social categories and differences are distorted and amplified (Bar-Tal 1989). Silencingoccurs when women and minorities are interrupted or not allowed to speak or participate on an equal basis. Just aschildren were once told to be seen and not heard, even though marginalized groups may be present, they may nothave the power to speak (Reinharz 1994). For example, a report examining the number of times female attorneyswere interrupted in the courtroom revealed that they were interrupted at least six times more frequently than maleattorneys (Reinharz 1994).

Documentable health effects based upon the chronic and ambiguous nature of contemporary forms ofdiscrimination include depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and vulnerability to heart disease and otherchronic ilhiesses (Foster & Tsarfati 2005). Prolonged stress can increase susceptibility to autoimmune diseases suchas diabetes and myopathy and exacerbate digestive disorders and neurological disease (Sapolsky 1998).

From the perspective of minority and female faculty and staff, awareness of these subtle barriers and thecontexts in which they occur can lead to the development of strategies that may be applied to varying circumstances,"lhis article specifically focuses on ways for women and minorities to cope with behavioral barriers in the workplace.We examine findings from social psychological research with a view to applying the results of this empirical researchto the higher education environment.

Building a Repertoire of Coping StrategiesHow can an individual facing marginalization and exclusion in the workplace begin to build his or her repertoire ofcoping strategies? One ofthe first steps for the individual affected by discrimination is to understand conceptuallythe nature of discrimination and its consequential psychological impact.

The process of exclusion and discrimination has four defining characteristics in terms of its psychosocialeffects upon members of stigmatized groups: (1) it increases the frequency and intensity of threats to the self;(2) it instills awareness ofthe devaluation of one's social identity; (3) it makes the individual aware that othershold stereotypes about his/her social identity; and (4) it elevates stress levels due to the ambiguity derived fromuncertainty about the motivation of actions toward stigmatized individuals (Miller & Major 2000).

Tlie second step in developing coping strategies is to recognize when different strategies can be deployedsuccessfully. Coping strategies are a situation-specific means of adapting to the stress caused by perceiveddiscrimination. They are not simply reactive in terms of past circumstances or events, but are proactive andanticipatory (Miller & Major 2000). From this perspective, research has shown that the unpredictability of stressorscan increase stress levels (Sapolsky 1998). For example, during the Nazi blitzkrieg of England, London was bombedevery night with regularity. Bombings in the suburbs occurred less frequently but also with less predictability Theresult was a greater increase in the development of ulcers in the suburban population (Sapolsky 1998). In addition,related experiments have shown that exercising some control over the situation is a powerful way to mitigate stress(Sapolsky 1998).

Adaptive strategies which allow anticipation of stressors through predictability and which permit theindividual to have some degree of perceived control will reduce the impact ofthe stress. In fact, when an individualcan appropriately attribute negative outcomes to prejudice, this attribution can serve a self-protective function(Crocker, Voeikl, Testa & Major 1991). In this regard, one study reveals that African-Americans who were preparedby their families to address and deal with racism did not have a significant relation between racist incidents andpoorer mental health, unlike those who had lower levels of preparation (Fischer & Shaw 1999).

Spring/Summer 2007 - Page 13

Since systemic racism has created its own forms of post-traumatic stress syndrome for 15 generations of African-Americans, the transmission of oppression's lessons from one generation to another has resulted in behavioralstrategies and resistance knowledge to cope with racial barriers (Feagin 2006). Other first- and second-generationminority immigrants to this country may have had less opportunity to develop these strategies and pass them on totheir families (Feagin, personal communication, February 16, 2007).

Types of Coping StrategiesTwo major types of coping strategies can be defined: problem-focused and emotion-focused. Problem-focused strategiesinvolve some type of action to minimize the effects of a problem or situation, and can be directed toward the self,toward others or toward the situation itself (Crocker & Major 1989; Kuo 1995). Emotion-focused strategies assist theindividual in regulating or controlling emotions in order to more successfully manage the impact of stress that theproblem or situation creates (Crocker & Major 1989). These strategies may be melded, and the distinction betweenthe two is not always clear cut.

Problem-focused strategies. In problem-focused coping directed toward the self, the individual can developmore refined interaction skills and social skills which will assist in achieving goals despite prejudice. Tbeseinteraction skills include the ability to detect subtle behavioral and situational cues (Miller & Kaiser 2001). Byblending the notion of predictability and anticipation with the ability to change behaviors in a socially skillfulfashion, the individual can adjust more quickly and mitigate the impact of prejudice. Much like a chess game inwhich the moves are anticipated and plotted in advance, minorities and women who are aware of and can predictsituational challenges are positioned to deploy higher order social and interactional skills to deflect the impact ofdiscrimination.

Problem-focused strategies directed toward situations can aim at structuring the situation to reduce or avoidthe opportunity for marginalization. For example, in some cases an individual may be able to structure a situationso as not to be isolated as the solo or token and dilute the tendency for others to attribute his or her behavior to thisstatus. Similarly, in problem-focused strategies directed at others, individuals can participate in efforts to changeexternal conditions and reduce or eliminate devaluation. Examples of these strategies are participation in civil rightsactivities or attempts to create legislative or judicial remedies to injustice.

Within the higher education workplace, a problem-focused strategy would be to build a network ofalliances which strengthens one's ability to withstand and effectively manage day-to-day workplace discrimination.Participation in campus-based minority focus groups is an example of a problem-based approach. Ihrough resourceor support groups, individuals can overcome a sense of isolation and uniqueness and obtain needed support.

Another problem-focused strategy reported by a minority faculty member to counteract marginalizationwas to focus more attention on her achievements in the national arena and ignore the lack of respect in her owndepartment (Thomas & HoUenshead 2001).

Emotion-focused strategies. Controlling the emotions so as not to directly express anger or frustration representsan important approach to de-escalating a situation that might otherwise result in undesirable outcomes. Humor,sarcasm and concealment of real thoughts from the oppressor have been ways that African-Americans have survivedunder the threat of retaliation and violence from white oppressors (Feagin 2006). Minorities and women also needto combat the internalization of negative images or stereotypes that can result in self-fulfilling prophecy (Feagin &CMcKinney 2003).

One interesting study of 499 Asian-American residents of Seattle revealed that Asian-Americans are morelikely to use intrapsychic, emotion-focused strategies such as reconceptualization of problems and avoidance to dealwith racial discrimination (Kuo 1995).

Spring/Summer 2007 - Page 14

While the study emphasizes that Asian Americans are not a homogenous group in terms of reactions to racialdiscrimination, traditional Asian cultural values that emphasize personal responsibility for success as well as theimportance of compromise, conciliation and adaptation in the face of conflict may influence the choice of emotion-focused strategies (Kuo 1995). Since a greater degree of awareness of minority status often accompanies the use ofemotion-focused coping, the findings of this study suggest that this choice may also be based upon an assessment ofthe risks of direct confrontation (Kuo 1995).

EfFective Coping StrategiesEfl̂ ective coping strategies employ a variety of mechanisms to address the challenges presented by perceiveddiscrimination. Cognitive restructuring is an adaptive strategy that enables the individual to redefine the meaningof stressful and threatening events. Forms of cognitive restructuring can include devaluing the domains upon whichstereotypes are made or reframing thoughts by understanding and interpreting patterns of behavior (Miller &cKaiser 2001). Thinking differently about an event or situation can enable the person to comextualize its meaningwithin a broader framework of understanding. This broader framework helps the individual refrain from dwellingunnecessarily on details and from overreacting to situations.

Depersonalization is an effective coping strategy since it allows the individuai subjected to subtlediscrimination to understand that similarly situated persons would experience the same thing. If the individual is asolo or token, the process of generalization and depersonalization becomes more difficult. Depersonalization createsdistance from an experience and places an event within an objective and intelligible framework. As such, it can beviewed as a successful form of cognitive restructuring.

Spiritual sources and cultural values often provide critical support to many minorities and women facingdiscrimination. For example, Africultural coping or behaviors that reflect the values of an African-centeredphilosophical framework based on spirituality, harmony and balance provide a culture-specific resource to buffer thepsychological effects of racism (Lewis-Coles & Constantine 2006).

An important question for minorities and women is whether or not directly challenging discrimination canbe an effective coping strategy. Potential dangers may arise if, for example, a complaint of discrimination is againstsomeone in power who controls important resources (Kaiser & Miller 2001b). F̂he outcome, as demonstrated inseveral studies, could be retaliation and negative treatment, and individuals must decide if the cost of claimingdiscrimination will be worth the consequences (Kaiser & Miller 2001b).

A study of more than 200 undergraduates provides specific evidence ofthe social costs of making claimsof discrimination, since the participants devalued an African-American male who attributed his failure todiscrimination, viewed him as a complainer and were insensitive to the amount of discrimination he faced even whenclear prejudice was shown (Kaiser & Miller 2001b). Despite the amount of discrimination the individual faced, he wasseen as more emotional, hypersensitive, argumentative, trouble-making and irritating (Kaiser & Miller 2001b). Thisstudy illuminates the risks and reactions that can accompany claims of discrimination. The stigmatized individualcan become typecast and seen as a troublemaker or a liability. The consequences and way of introducing informationabout discrimination must be considered in light of potential negative personal evaluations that may result.

In this regard, research findings indicate that women often do not directly confront the perpetrators of blatantdiscrimination or even tell members in positions of authority or higher status that they have been discriminatedagainst (Swim & Hyers 1999, as cited in Kaiser & Miller 2004). Through a process of^cognitive appraisal, individualsjudge whether events are potentially harmful or beneficial, as well as one's own ability to cope with the event andincrease the likelihood of success in dealing with the event (Kaiser & Miller 2004). Women and minorities facingperceived discrimination often use cognitive appraisals to determine the costs and benefits of directly confrontingprejudice. Since the most commoniy documented obstacle to confronting discrimination is the interpersonal cost,women tend to avoid confronting sexism for fear of retaliation or being perceived as hypersensitive(Kaiser & Miller 2004).

Spring/Summer 2007 - Page 15

To counteract perceived discrimination, the individual must bring into play a variety of strategies to assistin successfully meeting the challenge. These flexible and situation-specific strategies will assist the individual in themaintenance of normal, healthy self-esteem. While researchers have identified the importance of cognitive appraisal,situations often arise with only moments or seconds in which to respond. As a result, understanding the dynamicsof subtle discrimination in advance and rehearsing or practicing responses will enable women and minorities torespond quickly and effectively.

TKe theory of behavioral immunization counteracts the learned helplessness that results when individualsbelieve that outcomes are uncontrollable. This theory rests upon the notion of controlling trauma and protecting theindividual from helplessness by forming a cognitive representation ofthe situation and responding through behavior.A sense of competence also helps avoid the fear and depression caused by helplessness (Seligman 1975). The valueof counteracting learned helplessness lies in developing a course of action or response based upon learning about asituation, rather than simply giving up.

Compensation for prejudice is essentially a form of behavioral immunization that is proactive andanticipatory in nature. For example, one study of 134 female undergraduate students found that women who wereforewarned of impending prejudice conveyed less stereotypically feminine impressions on written essays (Kaiser &Miller 2001a). This research indicates that women who knew about pre-existing stereotypes distanced themselvesfrom these stereotypes to mitigate the effects of sexism. Instead of waiting for negative outcomes to appear, thewomen took steps to address the impact of pre-existing assumptions.

Finally, self-blame in situations of discrimination may encourage members of disadvantaged groups tomaintain their own oppression and internalize it through a form of hegemony. vSelf-blame can result in acceptance ofone's lower social status and promote actions that sustain the status quo rather than improve situations of systemicdiscrimination (Foster, Matheson & Poole 2001).

ConclusionIn reviewing the array of strategies available to women and minorities, the literature suggests that awareness ofpotential discrimination in the workplace is a prerequisite to developing effective coping strategies and inoculatingindividuals against the impact of perceived discrimination. A multiplicity of behavioral tools and approachesis needed. Gauging the specific situation (gaining information), not overreacting to it (emotional control) anddeveloping a plan of action to counteract "learned helplessness" are important ways to ensure an appropriateresponse.

To successfully develop coping and adaptive strategies, preparation provides a clear advantage in terms oftiming, practice and anticipation of behavioral obstacles. The research cited in this article validates the need forwomen and minorities to think through potential strategies in advance to counteract subtle discrimination in theworkplace. In examining the repeated and frequent challenges to self-esteem posed by behavioral barriers, a strongreservoir of internal psychological resources is needed to mitigate the stressful impact of discriminatory situations.

The role of human resource professionals is twofold in terms of the issues addressed in this article. First, inorder to optimize the talent of faculty and staff in support of institutional excellence as well as attain appropriaterepresentation of women and minorities at all levels ofthe organization, human resource professionals need toassist institutional leadership in transforming institutional culture to be more welcoming, inclusive and supportive.Until this transformation occurs, human resource professionals can assist minorities and women through buildingnetworks, establishing support groups, creating mentoring programs, developing wellness and health-relatedresources and designing professional development activities that strengthen their capacity to cope successfully withbehavioral and organizational barriers to diversity.

Spring/Summer 2007 - Page 16

References:

Bar-Tal, D. 1989. Delegitimization: The extreme case of stereotyping and prejudice. In D. Bar-Tal, C. Grauman, A.Kruglanski & W. Stroege (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice: Changing conceptions (pp. 169-182). New York:Springer-Verlag.

Grocker, J. and B. Major. 1989. Social stigma and self-esteem: The self protective properties of stigma. Psychological/? 96(4): 608-630.

Grocker, J., K. Voelkl, M. Testa and B. Major. 1991. Social stigma: The affective consequences of attributionalambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60(2): 218-228.

Deirch, E.A., A. Barsky, R.M. Butz, S. Ghan, A.P. Brief & J.G. Bradley 2003. Subtle yet significant: The existenceand impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations 56(11): 1299-1324.

Evans, A. and E.B. Ghun. 2007. Are the walls really down? Behavioral and organizational barriers to faeulty and staffdiversity (ASHE-ERIG Higher Education Reports 33(1)). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Feagin, J.R. 2006. Systemic racism: A theory of oppression. New York: Routledge.

1-cagin, J.R. and K.D. McKinney 2003. V}e many costs of racism. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Fischer, A.R. and G.M. Shaw. 1999. African Americans' mental health and perceptions of racist discrimination:Tlie moderating effects of racial socialization experiences and self-esteem. Journal of Counseling Psychology 46(3):395-407.

Foster, M.D. and E.M. Tsarfati. 2005. The effects of meritocracy beiiefs on women's well-being after first-timegender discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin d>\{\2): 1730-1738.

Foster, M.D., K. Matheson and M. Poole. 2001. Responding to sexual discrimination: The effects of societal versusse\f-h\a.me. Journal of Social Psychology 134(6): 743-754.

Kaiser, G.R. and G.T. Miller. 2001a. Reacting to impending discrimination: Gompensation for prejudice andattributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(10): 1357-1367.

Kaiser, G.R. and G.T. Miller. 2001b. Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(2):254-263.

Kaiser, G.R. and G.T. Miller. 2004. A stress and coping perspective on confronting sexism. Psychology of WomenQuarterly 1%{2): 168-178.

Kuo, W.H. 1995. Gopingwith racial discrimination: The case of Asian Americans. Ethnic and Racial Studies 18(1):109-127.

Lcwis-Goles, M.E. and M.G. Gonstantine. 2006. Racism-related stress, Africultural coping, and religious problem-solving among African Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psyehology 12(3): 433-443.

Spring/Summer 2007 - Page 17

Miller, CT. and C R . Kaiser. 2001. A theoretical perspective on coping with stigma.. Journal of Social Issues 57{I):73-92.

Miller, CT. and B. Major. 2000. Coping with stigma and prejudice. In T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebland J.G. Hull (Eds.), Ihe social psychology of stigma (pp. 243-272). New York: Guilford Press.

Reinharz, S. 1994. Toward an ethnography of'voice' and 'silence.' In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts & D. Birman (Eds.),Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 178-200). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sapolsky, R.M. 1998. Why zebras don't get ulcers: An updated guide to stress, stress-related diseases and coping. NewYork: W.H. Freeman and Co.

Seligman, M.E.R 1975. Helplessness: On depression, development and death. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

Thomas, C D . and C. HoUenshead. 2001. Resisting from the margins: The coping strategies of black women andother women of color faculty members at a research university. The Journal of Negro Education 70(3): 166-175.

Word, C O . , M.P. Zanna & J. Cooper. 2000. The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracialinteraction. In C Stangor (Ed.), Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings (pp. 226-233). Philadelphia: PsychologyPress. {K^pnni&d hom Journal of Experimental Social Psychology {1974) 10(2): 109-120).

Young, S. 2003. Micro-inequities: The power of small. Workforce Diversity Reader 1(1): 88-95.

Spring/Summer 2007 - Page 18